Replies

My marriage of 33+ years does not need to be "protected" by a constitutional ammendment - thank you. For all those who have been married only once, faithful, and in good standing with all your vows - don't need protection. Only those who are unsure of themselves and their relationship need protection.

Get into a mistaken marriage where a women dumps you and tries to take it all and get reamed by the family law courts and your mythical "i dont need protection" would get washed away. I've seen men destroyed by divorce that was not of their own making. Your swagger is foolish in the extreme.

"Get into a mistaken marriage..."
That's the point, choose wisely and you won't need the protection of a constitutional ammendment to cover your sorry a**.
"Your swagger is foolish in the extreme."
Only if it can't be backed up by action little grasshopper. I walk the walk, not just talk the talk. That's self-confidence, not swagger.

Get into a mistaken marriage where a women dumps you and tries to take it all and get reamed by the family law courts and your mythical "i dont need protection" would get washed away. I've seen men destroyed by divorce that was not of their own making.

Maybe the "defense of marriage" act we need is one which raises the bar on divorce. Easy divorce has harmed more families then any other cause. Divorce is what has weakened marriage in this country, not homosexuality, incest, or bestiality.

But nobody wants to deal with the divorce problem. All this ranting about gay marriage weakening the institution reminds me of the story of the drunk looking for his lost keys under the streetlight. Someone comes along and offers to help, asking "where did you lose them?" "In the alley," the drunk replies, "but it's too dark to see anything there."

Like the drunk, so-called "defenders of marriage" are not addressing the hard problem, but are searching for a solution in a place that won't do them any good.